California to force new home owners to buy solar panels

Listen up comrade! You WILL buy solar panels whether you like it or not.

As if housing in California isn’t already overpriced and out-of-reach enough, now there’s this hare-brained scheme. From the LA Times:

California heads toward requiring solar panels on all new houses

California is set to become the first state to require solar panels on all newly built single-family houses. The mandate is expected to save buyers money in the long run but also raise their upfront costs at a time many are already struggling to afford a mortgage.

The state’s Energy Commission is scheduled to vote Wednesday on the rules, which are expected to pass and take effect in 2020. The regulations, which would also apply to new multifamily buildings of three stories or fewer, don’t need the approval of the Legislature.

The new building standards — which also include updated insulation mandates — are a piece of California’s ambitious plan to slash greenhouse gas emissions in coming decades. That will require sweeping policy changes to promote renewable energy, electric vehicles and even denser neighborhoods where people have to drive less for daily trips.

“This is going to be a significant increase in the solar market in California,” Kelly Knutsen of the trade group California Solar & Storage Assn. said of the new requirement. “We are also sending a national message that … we are a leader in the clean energy economy.”

…

If the new rules added $9,500 to the sales price of an otherwise $530,000 home, a buyer putting 20% down would need to cough up an additional $1,900 for the down payment, according to a mortgage calculator from online brokerage Redfin.

Monthly mortgage payments would rise by $50 if the buyer took out a 30-year mortgage at 4.39% interest.

280 thoughts on “California to force new home owners to buy solar panels”

This is just too silly. Even communists and dictators do not force the purchase of solar panels. This is a religion. A belief in a carbon God. A new line added onto the Book of the Dead. Expect carbon churches, carbon priests, drunk liberal politicians who lecture us on carbon pollution while they pay themselves more before jetting off to carbon conferences. Californian liberals are classic spivs.

Catalytic converters have a demonstrable good. Solar panels have a demonstrable negative. They will never pay for themselves. Power costs will always be higher, no matter how long they are used.
All the regs will do is force people to subsidize an economically non-viable industry. But they will allow Jerry Brown and Mary Nichols to feel pious. And that’s important.

Coeur de Lion:
Looking at the actual paper referenced in the NRL data, they compared a solar installation to a diesel generator. That’s why they had such a short payback.
One of the real problems with rooftop solar is that not every roofline faces east-west. Their mostly random. If your roofline runs north-south, you get practically nothing. Northeast- Southwest, then about 8% efficacy (cosine of 45 times 12%).

@The Lion
Actually… it’s not necessarily easily proven that catalytic converters reduce pollution since they also increase back pressure.
Show the calculation and then maybe I’ll accept that hypothesis. Calculate the engine efficiency with and without the chemical afterburner… show the efficiency with and without the air flow meter in conjunction with the converter… and show the efficiency of the engine if the converter is not tuned properly in the exhaust system.
It is not necessarily true or easy to show that a catalytic converter reduces the overall systemic emissions of running an internal combustion engine vehicle.

unknown502756
“it’s not necessarily easily proven that catalytic converters reduce pollution”
…
Actually one doesn’t need calculations. I suggest you talk to someone that lived in the Los Angeles basin in the 1960/1970’s and have them tell you how bad the air pollution was.

Where your critics are sort of right is that oxygen sensors, and electronically controlled fuel injection and spark management systems required to make catalytic converters work would have reduced pollution a great deal if they were used without a catalytic converter. It is a rather fruitless argument, as the systems were introduced at much the same time, so no real way of sorting out the effects is possible.

@The Lion:
Actually… one does need to do the calculation… smog is a local phenomenon not a global one. Therefore, it’s quite possible that a catalytic converter is simply moving the smog around… displacing it from the tailpipe to the refinery.
So… please have a go… or go away… ’cause you got nothing but hot air.

unknown502756, if you think that catalytic converters do not clean up air pollution from vehicles, I suggest that you take a trip to China, and visit an urban area like Beijing and breath the air in the city. They have lots of 2-stroke scooters and motorcycles that do not have converters.

@The Lion:
Again with the deflection… what? You can’t do the math? You’re not sure where to begin?
You’re arm chairing this discussion… aren’t you? Well… maybe many of us posters here are as well.
But, your claim is still unproven to me by you. Please work on solving the problem at hand before waving your hands in the air about having the solution to the problem.
And… please show your work, neatness counts.

” You can’t do the math? ”
..
One does not need math when the study of history shows that catalytic converters solved a serious air pollution problem, especially in California.
..
The air in LA is cleaner today than it was in the early 1970’s.
..
Not to mention that there are more motor vehicles in LA today than in the 1970’s.

“One does not need math when the study of history shows that catalytic converters solved a serious air pollution problem, especially in California.”
And forced those of us who DON’T live in Commiefornia to drive less-efficient cars, thereby producing more CO2 and destroying the planet with Climate Change.

PS “” What you are saying is no updates for 3 years. ”
…
I don’t know how old you are, but when the Y2K thing happened, there was a serious problem getting COBOL programmers to fix code that was running for 10+ years.

I have a database that has been running for close to 20 years. Doesn’t mean the OS wasn’t patched.

“I have a database that has been running for close to 20 years. Doesn’t mean the OS wasn’t patched.”
…
However, the database system would run both with and without the OS patches. It certainly ran before the patches were applied, so the OS patches were not necessary for the running of the DB.

Coeur the DOE propaganda you site is only valid for states that pay top dollar for the electricity that you send back into the grid and do not charge you top dollar for the electricity that you take out. In many states roof top solar panels DO not pay for themselves.

Coeur de Lion
More things than motor vehicles contribute to urban smog. Domestic heating/cooling and power form the largest. Domestic coal burning caused the infamous London pea soupers around the turn of the 19th/20th Century.

Why bring religion into it? It is a totally secular ideology. Nothing to do with religion. Secularist ideologies can be absurd enough without bringing religion into the equation. The next thing people will be saying that Marxism is a religion and that Mark was a religious prophet. And that when he said that religion is the opium of the people he meant that approvingly. And after that we might well have the claim that atheism is a religion.

Pollution was bad.
Cars started using catalytic converts.
Pollution wasn’t as bad.
Ergo catalytic converters caused the improvement.
Do you really believe that you have proven what you wanted to prove?

The calculations are way off since it is doubtful the solar panels will be effective for 30 years. My understanding is they degrade over time. Plus, unless one keeps the panels clean they lose efficiency. This is like Obamacare. A regulation that will no live up to the hyped promises. How many of these politicians own stock in the companies set to become rich on this diktat?

“Power costs will always be higher, no matter how long they are used.” Quite true. Don’t you wish you had a business model where you have a captive consumer and the less amount of product sold the more you can you can charge. I can see it now, solar panels and installation will become way over priced.

The life cycle of solar panels and neodymium magnets should be taught in schools alongside the carbon cycle and the water cycle.
‘Environmentalists’ would soil themselves if they could be bothered to cheque 😉

Fascinating. In what ever world you inhabit, there is no abrasion, mechanical or thermal shock. Once a “permanent” magnet is made, it will last forever.
Unfortunately, out here in the world us non-trolls live in, everything wears out.

50 years ago the artwork I brought home from grade school was put on the refrigerator door and held with a magnet. That same magnet today is still stuck on my refrigerator door, but it holds up my grandchildren’s drawings.
…
Tell me MarkW, how long will that permanent magnet last?

@The Lion:
Here we are again…
Well… permanent magnets lose their magnetic properties when either heated at a high temperature for a long time or are subjected to sudden and significant shock.
So, are any of those events possible in… say… a massive windmill… Yes! I guess so. Sudden shock and high temperatures can occur in electric motors, wind turbines, and many other applications where permanent magnets are included in the BOM.
So… perhaps let’s do the calculation for enabling active braking systems on an Electric Motor for an EV… does the energy dissipated raise the temperature of the permanent magnet enough to cause a loss in magnetic properties? What is that formula again? Remind me….
And…
What if the mass of the vehicle in question is something on the order of a Semi-Trailer? The energy required to dissipate through the electric motor system in an active braking maneuver for such a large mass may cause the motor to heat rapidly and beyond a temperature for magnetic properties to be sustained…
And then what happens?
Crash! Loss of property and life…

Coeur de Lion
Let me get this clear in my head. What you seem to be saying is that ‘permanent’ magnets never degrade or lose their magnetic power. In which case, haven’t we then cracked perpetual motion?

Coeur – check it out before cashing any cheques, It is a rare earth product. The extraction of which, in the unregulated countries preferred by storks, is a disgusting, disfiguring, disruptive and dire stain on the planet and those folk who prefer their pollution to be created someplace they can’t see, smell or breathe it.

You are not ‘on a winner’ Coeur.
50 years ago was 25 years before the commercialization of neodymium magnets, so holding up your artwork was old fashioned and probably steel based.
A drive motor for the typical hybrid or typical electric vehicle contains over 1 kilogram of neodymium.
Up to 600 kilograms of permanent magnet per megawatt in all direct-drive wind turbines –
less in gear driven ones granted but still a not insignificant amount when multiplied by n of turbines around the place.
Magnets formed with the industry standard 30% neodymium by weight are extremely prone to corrosion and are brittle, which leads to various failures – spallation, crumbling, etc.

“We are also sending a national message that … we are a leader in the clean energy economy.”

I think the message you are sending is, “Buy old homes and restore. Avoid buying a new home at all costs, so we can have a bunch of unoccupied, new houses on the market that don’t stand a chance in hell of being bought, because they all are sentences in our national message, … monuments to our failed cause based on failed assumptions.”
OR
the simpler message, “We’re too stupid to face reality.”

I read another story a couple of days ago about how the number of people leaving CA is accelerating, and cost of housing is one of the biggest reasons.
Add to this the number of high income earners who will be leaving the state because the rest of us are no longer subsidizing CA’s high taxes to the degree we used to.

But this will increase the sale price of those old homes. Supply and Demand. Once the politicians figure this out a NEW LAW will be written to force all homes to be fitted with solar panels upon sale. The new owners will have to pay. This will cause a over supply of homes as people move out of California. Then who will support the state with the largest percentage of illegal immigrants, the largest percentage of people in poverty, and the largest percentage of welfare recipients in the country?

The only question I have is – what energy saving per month, will this $50 per month cost be offset against?
If it equals $50 – I’d be a bit iffy about it all, if its more than the $50, not problem, but associated with that, would these solar panels last the 30 years that the mortgage does, for them to be paid back over?
The total of $18,000 for the panels – $50 per month X 12months X 30yrs = $18,000……really makes you wonder, if sufficient energy is created over the panels life time.
PS…did I miss something??

You are spot on DBH, although the math used in the article was for the panels to only cost $9,500. If we nearly doubled that cost to the $18k you suggested (which to me sounds like a more accurate figure for a decent size installation based on my admittedly basic research) it would be closer to $100 per month. Most panels have a claimed lifespan of 15-25 years and some die long before that. None of this even begins to cover where these panels are being made, their quality or the pollution generated in their creation.
I have a friend in the bay area with solar panels on his home, they were there when he bought the house and the contract came with the home so he could not get out of it. The rental cost for the panels is basically equal to the cost of electricity that they offset so there is effectively no gain for him. Now that could change if the cost of electricity spikes in CA, which is not at all unlikely.

As an energy analyst in Ca, I’ve been dealing with the CEC for years as they slowly squeeze the consumer. What most people don’t realize is the only reason solar CAN pay off in SOME parts of Ca (not NoCal) is we have a sunny climate, benign weather, and insanely high electricity costs. For those of you in other states, the disclaimer would be ‘don’t try this at home’.
The other part they are looking at is the requirement for a power backup system (Powerwall?)to get ‘credit’ for the solar (another way Musk uses the power of the government to finance his business model). This has happened because back in the Enron days, those electricity price spikes were cause by high cost of electricity during peak use, which was 10am-4pm. When the Utility Commission allowed net metering for solar it seemed like a great idea for the utility companies. Basically they were taking your expensive peak energy in exchange for cheaper energy later. Now, because of all the solar, peak energy use is 4pm-9pm. The utilities are now taking your cheap solar power and paying you back in peak power. The law of unintended consequences always wins.

D B H
Just take a look at the UK example. Solar panels were encouraged by subsidising every kW (?) returned to the grid by the panels, guaranteed for 20 years. The market boomed until the price is now 10% of that some 10 years later. The market has entirely collapsed because the cost of installation and maintenance is far more than any return.
When I retire back to Scotland in 5 or 6 years and look for a house, I’ll be targeting those with solar panels installed so I can beat the house price down as I’ll be responsible for removing and disposing of a useless technology which has become a liability.

The laws may have changed, but a few years ago, public utilities began adding a surcharge to the rates paid by solar panel owners, claiming that beneficiaries of net metering didn’t pay enough for grid maintenance.

Pay you? Are you silly? Just change the laws to FORCE people to buy panels. The utilities now get electric, get to regulate this, and get a FREE infrastructure built for them!
And you can be sure that rates given to such people will ALSO be very low, and VERY controlled by the SAME people regulating YOU out of your great kindness to build all that infrastructure that at one time the government and utilities were supposed to build!
Why build all that stuff when you can get the silly consumers to build it for you!!!
Now, you build it, they still take your money!!! – really a dream come true for these folks.

@ Coeur de Lion May 9, 2018 at 1:51 pm
Panels manufactured today carry a 25 year warranty that insures they provide 90% of rated output during that 25 year span. So, no, you are wrong to say their efficiency craters after 10 years.
—-
How many of these panels have been around for twenty-five years?
And how many of these companies have been around for twenty-five years without government subsidies?

Those warranties are highly pro-rated, so the company isn’t out much money even if the output craters after 10 years.
Assuming of course that the company that made them is still in business 10 years from now.

Forgetting the cost of inverters. While the panels may obtain 90% after 25 years, that’s not equal to the length of the mortgage. And panels have this bad habit of failing and by then where is the panel company? Forget any 25 year warranty. Ain’t gonna happen. And that warranty does not cover the biggest expense – installation costs. More importantly, the inverter costs about the same as the panels, more if micro inverters are used. For a 6KW roof, figure a max output of around 4.5 KW and the cost of a new inverter(s) over $5,000, with inverter lifespans generally around 15 years. Of course, the ones who really suffer are those who don’t have solar roofs and subsidize those that do by paying them for their excess power at retail prices, power that is neither requested nor even usuable, and if used to substitute for reliable power, increases the per unit cost of the reliable power output in an almost linear fashion with respect to capacity. Of course, this also hurts solar roof owners when they require grid power. May as well require those homes to install batteries to help prevent unneeded solar power from being dumped onto the grid. Those batteries will NOT last over 16 years, and by then will have lost probably 25% of their capacity.

Lie-on really doesn’t know much about the real world. He actually believes that as long as there are no moving parts, something will last forever.
Electronics wear out all the time. The hotter they get, the quicker they break down.

Couer de Lion… re your comment at 2:46 pm:
You make it sound so simple:
” For a 6KW roof, figure a max output of around 4.5 KW and the cost of a new inverter(s) over $5,000, ” Nope, just buy 6 of these @ $110 each:…”
Concerning your point 1: “… the only thing that can wear out in an inverter is the cooling fan. They can last 50+ years as long as the fan is turning.”
Did you happen to read the reviews?… three 1-stars out of five total… here’s how verified purchaser Candace described her experience:
“Quit working after 2 weeks of use. Had smoke coming out of it. Tried to contact company twice about it with no response.”
Your guess is as good as mine with regard to whether the fan was assisting with the smoke-clearing phase of this unit’s life cycle, but I believe that 50 years is being rather optimistic.

MarkW says: “He actually believes that as long as there are no moving parts, something will last forever.”
…
The AM radio in my 67 Camero still works fine. There are a couple of moving parts in it, and it gets vibrated when I drive the car. How long will this electronic device work?

Yes LdB, your experience with your radio is abnormal. I’ll bet the battery in that vehicle outlasted the radio, and the power flow through the battery was 100 times as large as what flows through the radio.

Greg F, please explain to me why a complex CPU chip made by Intel, with a 75/100/125 watt power dissipation can run for eight or ten years? That little chip is pretty small and doesn’t seem to degrade over time. We have servers running Linux that sometimes go THREE YEARS without rebooting.

“Coeur de Lion May 9, 2018 at 6:49 pm
We have servers running Linux that sometimes go THREE YEARS without rebooting.”
That’s because you are not running Windows. But what has rebooting a Linux server got to do with inverter electronics breaking down over time?

“Coeur de Lion May 9, 2018 at 6:53 pm
PS Greg F, our network equipment is even more reliable than our servers. Why do the power supplies in that stuff work well for such long periods of time?”
Power cycling is the biggest killer of this kind of equipment. It’s usually turned on and left on. Still, does not compare to an inverter.

Coeur de Lion, my liver is older than most of the things you listed, and it still works. As with warrantied solar panels, I’m sure the manufacturer will still be around in another 50 years to make good on any failings that might occur.
Promises are cheap. (Except those that we are also forced to buy from climate modellers.) While I don’t doubt that reliability could be improving, that doesn’t mean that any given manufacturer/installer will actually do so. The economics of the marketplace, even an ‘honest’ open market, can often drive quality down in pursuit of quantity and low prices. Right now, that is where the arrow seems to be pointing, IMO.
If the government of California wants to enforce purchase of solar panels perhaps they should also enforce some genuine standards or guarantee them for the lifetime of the new house? Or maybe try and establish a credible second-hand market. Unfortunately, history suggests these would also end in failure, and right now the private sector is still stuck in ‘Tesla Mode’. That is, the market is not mature enough to be credible, partly because many of the buyers are either technical “enthusiasts” or subsidized, or both. In the UK, previous governments tried to jump-start the solar and wind energy markets, with the idea that the subsidies would help establish an industry that was invested in product development and quality improvements with a long term view. But all that really happened is that many market players simply raked in the short term profits. It’s almost as if they too didn’t believe that there was a significant long term potential that warranted serious investment. They simply took the money and ran, like some of the cowboy installers who were really just a bloke with a ladder.

Greg F, please explain to me why a complex CPU chip made by Intel, with a 75/100/125 watt power dissipation can run for eight or ten years?

You are totally missing the point.
Failure rate. A certain percentage will fail. Semiconductor failure rates have a bathtub curb. There will be a higher percentage of failures at the beginning and at wear out (about 100 years). There are still a percentage that will fail over time. If the probability of a CPU failing over a 10 year period is 1 in 1000 and you only have 10 CPU’s it is not likely you will see a failure. Just because you haven’t experienced it doesn’t mean it never happens.

That little chip is pretty small and doesn’t seem to degrade over time.

Well it does. The fact that it still works doesn’t mean nothing has changed. If the changes are large enough you will get a failure.
The CPU doesn’t go through the thermal stress a power semiconductor goes through as the CPU stays in a relatively narrow temperature range. In a power semiconductor the temperature swings are much larger. Since the different materials composing the semiconductor have different values for thermal coefficient of expansion temperature changes create stresses where the different materials bond. This means there is a higher chance of failure from thermal cycling for any semiconductor.

We have servers running Linux that sometimes go THREE YEARS without rebooting.

Updates often require reboots. What you are saying is no updates for 3 years. No security holes plugged for 3 years. Who ever made that decision should be looking for a new job.

LMAO @ Greg F: ” at wear out (about 100 years)”
..
This means that the CPU chips they made in 1918 are going to start wearing out today?
..“and you only have 10 CPU’s ”
…
I have well over 4000, and have RETIRED more of them due to obsolescence than from failure.
.. “The CPU doesn’t go through the thermal stress a power semiconductor goes through as the CPU stays in a relatively narrow temperature range.” …….BULL$hit…..the power supply and CPU’s both exhibit very low failure rates.
..“This means there is a higher chance of failure from thermal cycling for any semiconductor. ” …..which shows everybody here that you have totally missed the point. Most power electronics are not cycled…..they run 24×7.
…” What you are saying is no updates for 3 years. ”
…
This shows all of us you are computer ignorant. In the world of IT, if something is working, there is no need to “fix” it. Ever hear the saying, “let the sleeping dog lye?”

PS “” What you are saying is no updates for 3 years. ”
…
I don’t know how old you are, but when the Y2K thing happened, there was a serious problem getting COBOL programmers to fix code that was running for 10+ years.

This means that the CPU chips they made in 1918 are going to start wearing out today?

Now your just being a troll.

I have well over 4000, and have RETIRED more of them due to obsolescence than from failure.

No you don’t and no you haven’t.

…..which shows everybody here that you have totally missed the point. Most power electronics are not cycled…..they run 24×7.

You have short memory. We were talking power inverters. It doesn’t mater if they are running 24/7. What maters is how the temperature changes. The temperature is dependent on the load. With a solar power inverter the semiconductor temperature drops at night as there is no power being generated. The other extreme is around noon when the inverter is running full tilt. That is what thermal cycling is.

This shows all of us you are computer ignorant. In the world of IT, if something is working, there is no need to “fix” it.

Not installing patches is gross negligence. IT is not a world you are even remotely familiar with.

Greg F: “Now your just being a troll. ”
…
1) No, I’m just pointing out your “wear out (about 100 years)” is a baseless assertion.
..
2) Your English sucks….it’s “you’re” not “your”
..
3) “If the changes are large enough you will get a failure. ” Do we have to wait 100 years for this to happen? I don’t think we have 90 year old CPUs to investigate.
..
4) ” No security holes plugged for 3 years” You are defiantly not versed in IT. For example, the computer engine control system in my 2001 Chevy hasn’t had an update since it left the factory. I don’t think it has ANY security holes. Have you updated the software in your car? When was the last time you updated the firmware in the disk drive in your laptop/desktop?

de Lion says: “Nick Werner does not understand the concept of “infant mortality” or “burn in” when it comes to electronics.”
Maybe I don’t or maybe I do. I prefer to let readers reach their own conclusions.
FWIW, I’m an experienced electrical engineer. I may have formed my own opinion of de Lion but don’t see much virtue in sharing it.
I had followed de Lion’s link to a product he introduced with “Nope, just buy 6 of these @ $110 each” and I read the information provided there. Thinking that might be the purpose of de Lion supplying a hyperlink.
From the description of the 1000 Watts Grid Tie Inverter: “Normal AC Output Power: 900W”.
Of the five reviews, all from verified purchasers, zero said the product was capable of 900W output. One person got 850W, another ‘70%’ [presumably 700W], a third said “overloads and wattage goes from 750 to 0 then slowly back to 750 watts on 1000 watt solar panels”, and two are getting 0 because the device quit/stopped working.
Readers are at liberty to set their expectations for the ‘1000 Watts Grid Tie Inverter’ on de Lion’s subsequent comment about his experience with the AM radio in his ’67 Camaro. As am I to consider whether one non-moving-yet-still-operational electrical device in somebody’s ’67 Camaro adds any more information about the inverter than the non-moving coil in my ’94 Camry that failed one night while it was parked in my driveway.

@ lion
“1) ” inverter lifespans generally around 15 years” Nope, the only thing that can wear out in an inverter is the cooling fan. They can last 50+ years as long as the fan is turning”
Bullshit.
You have really no idea about real world electronic components and how they react under varying high frequency, high loads in varying temperatures.
That your old AM radio still works (low power low stress device) does not say anything about high power electronics.
Please, stop projecting your ideal world onto the real one. It just does not fit.

“Updates often require reboots. What you are saying is no updates for 3 years. No security holes plugged for 3 years. Who ever made that decision should be looking for a new job.”
That rather depends on what/where the servers are being used. If the servers are in a closed & controlled environment (ie not connected to the wider world of the internet) you wouldn’t need to frequently update to plug holes that simply aren’t applicable to what you are doing with the servers (for example, no need to plug remote access vulnerabilities if there is no ability to remotely access the servers in the first place). whereas if they are open to the outside world, then you are quite correct that not updating for 3 years is a seriously major security risk.

I see lie-on doesn’t understand the difference between software and hardware.
The fact that a Linux server can go 3 years without re-booting is a testament to how well the OS was written. It says absolutely nothing about how long the CPUs will last.

Couer de Lion:Panels manufactured today carry a 25 year warranty that insures they provide 90% of rated output during that 25 year span.I recently paid for a new roof which was advertised as having a 20 year warranty. Unfortunately, that warranty had small print conditions which said I had to pay for an annual inspection of the roof installation for the insurance to continue. The warranty was not ‘free’ and the 20-year cost of the ‘inspection’ would have paid for a new roof 20 years down the line.
You sound very much like the original mug.

“4) ” No security holes plugged for 3 years” You are defiantly not versed in IT. For example, the computer engine control system in my 2001 Chevy hasn’t had an update since it left the factory. I don’t think it has ANY security holes. Have you updated the software in your car? When was the last time you updated the firmware in the disk drive in your laptop/desktop?”
You said you have Linux servers that have good 3 years with out rebooting which prompted the “No security holes plugged for 3 years?” question. so unless your car is running a Linux server, it’s rather irrelevant to the point.

“As with warrantied solar panels, I’m sure the manufacturer will still be around in another 50 years to make good on any failings that might occur.”
Yeah, why don’t you ask Solyndra about how good their warranties are?

What’s the difference between the Mafia and government? Only one thing, one. 15,000 hours of forced indoctrination to justify the state, paid for by theft. Sally, most humans are too childish to see it for what it is.

We have a well known – and pretty effective – charity here in the UK, and perhaps abroad, too, I believe – the ‘Sally Army’.
Founded in 1865.
Salvation Army – https://www.salvationarmy.org.uk/
Might this be the reference?
Possibly?
Auto

“My Dear Aunt Sally” is also part of the mnemonic PEMDAS, used to help remember the order of operations in algebraic equations.
PEMDAS = Please Excuse My Dear Aunt Sally = Parentheses, Exponents, Multiplication, Division, Addition, Subtraction

As long as you feel like you’re making a difference, that’s what matters most.
I always wondered about the Iran deal, why didn’t Obama force even-sunnier Iran to have solar panels instead of enriching uranium to provide cheaper nuclear power for their citizens. They still have the pallets of European cash, don’t they?

I thought the power company had to approve you to hook up to the grid?
About buying old homes. Just pass a bill to require panels when you sell. Heck. Just require all homes to retrofitted with panels.That would really send a message.

What is it with this socialist greenie reflex to dictate to the proles more state driven constrains on ‘life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness’? This arbitrary and capricious requirement comes from a regulatory board? And doesn’t need legislative approval? You gotta be kidding me!
Green Police: “Sign ze solar panel papers, Old Man!”
Old Man: “I cannot signs ze papers….”
Green Police: “Why will you not sign ze solar panel papers, foolish Old Man?!!”
Old Man: “Because you have broken both of my hands!”

I call BULLSHIT! on the fuzzy math provided with this article. The same fuzzy math that sold the crap sandwich known as Jerry’s high(sic)-speed, positive-cash-flow train between Fresno and Visalia.
I have heard the average cost of the solar mandate as closer to $30k for the average house size built in CA. BTW … where WERE the most basic details of this mandate in the article? How many kW per sq.ft. of Home is being mandated? What if the solar orientation of your home/site is less than optimal?
I just finished a NEW home in the EBMUD water district, and the required water service “capacity fee” for our home (with mandated fire sprinklers +$ 35k) and (mandated separate landscape water meter +$7.5k) cost my client +$65k. So … before construction even STARTS … it cost my client +$110k Add to that the “Greenpoint Silver Rating” … over and above a recently bolstered Title-24 regulation (minimum building envelope and lighting requirements) +$25k … not to mention the local city “developer fees” +$35k … by the time all the permit fees and “mandates” are paid … my client was $200k poorer. But hey! Only RICH … FILTHY RICH Googleaires can afford a house in CA anyway.

Just tell the clients who move elsewhere and leave their politics back in Commiefornia. Don’t come to FLorida!!! Recommend Texas, heh heh.
They ruined Boulder Colorado, which had been liberal for decades, and a year or two ago even the old, liberal residents up there whined about that.
Gums sends…

Each additional regulation sounds like a small burden. On the other hand, when you add up the cost of a zillion reasonable sounding regulations …
I like the following idea:

A good means of addressing the explosion of federal overregulation is the proposed REINS (Regulations of the Executive In Need of Scrutiny) Act. That act would cut back on executive overreach by requiring that any federal regulation imposing $100 million in increased costs on the private sector would have to be approved by Congress before going into effect. link

As far as I can tell, it’s through the House and is in the Senate. link
It’s time to severely restrict the ability of bureaucrats to create new regulations on a whim.

Yup. The administrative deep state needs to be reined in.
Administrators’ salaries should be tied to how much they don’t spend, rather than hurrying up to squander whatever is left over at the end of the quarter or year, less their budgets be cut.

“That act would cut back on executive overreach by requiring that any federal regulation imposing $100 million in increased costs on the private sector would have to be approved by Congress before going into effect”
Even if that act becomes law, you’d be amazed at the accounting acrobatics that would ensure that each new regulation would have an estimate of less than $100 million in increased costs.

Dan, actually the smart ones don’t pay for it because they get on the gravy train. The rest of us who don’t get stuck with much of the bill. Same goes with electric car subsidies. The upper class gets the subsidies and we get the shaft.

Even if a panel has a current price of $9,500, when you factor in the effect of supply and demand, plus the natural result of mandating that every home have one, $30,000 sounds like it may be on the low side.

Ok – so reading the full article, I was somewhat satisfied that the energy produced would offset the monthly payments – right up until I saw the Sierra Club chiming in and supporting it….at which point my BS detector started causing me grief…..and I’m left questioning the whole idea now.
NB…I have for many years suggested this very thing, that new builds should be made with solar panels – both PV and water – water being the better pay-back in my opinion. But from what I have started to understand, the question of total lifetime cost/savings/benefit, now makes my view now somewhat weaker….darn it all.

MarkW
Plus shedloads.
If it makes sense [note – the subsidy levels will vary in space and time] – then folk will go for heat pumps, solar, wood-burning stoves, mirrors, hydro and even wind or whatever
Let folk decide.
And if your pet boondoggle doesn’t cut the mustard, well, so be it.
Auto

‘Why not let people decide for themselves what they want?’
That’s not the progressive way. See, sometimes people make choices they don’t approve of.
Funny that they always seem to put themselves in position of authority, as opposed to those ruled over.

I have a product idea for electric and hybrid vehicles. Picture a line of lens covers for the front and rear turn signal lamps on Prius, Volt, Leaf, etc. vehicles. The only transparent parts on each lens cover are the letters V I R T U E. This would allow the the electric vehicles owners to ‘virtue signal’ at every turn……

You need to distinguish between hybrid and pure-electric vehicles.
Hybrid vehicles have a gasoline engine and a battery which stores energy dissipated by braking, which can be used to drive the wheels when the car is moving slowly, which results in excellent fuel economy. By checking the odometer between fillups, my Prius got over 43 miles per gallon on the last tankful (338 miles on 7.8 gallons). It doesn’t have to be plugged in, so it consumes no additional fossil fuels burned by the electric company.
A pure electric vehicle may not burn any gasoline where it is driven, but recharging the batteries consumes fossil fuels burned by the power company to generate electricity. Depending on the efficiency of the power plant, the electric vehicle may end up burning more fossil fuels per mile driven than a gasoline-powered car.
If someone wants to be really “green” and burn less fossil fuels, a hybrid vehicle reduces total CO2 emissions much more than a plug-in electric vehicle does.

It captures some of the energy lost in braking, not all of it.
The slower the car goes, the less effective regenerative brakes become. There’s also all the conversion losses in the system.
BTW, my Fiat gets over 50mpg.

You are current in your comparison of a “pure” EV vs. a Hybrid. It’s strange and confusing that the term “Plug-in” is also used to refer to Hybrids.
However, your sense of “Green” does not seem to include the emissions from the production of your Prius battery. Your Prius battery is probably equivalent to at least a year or two of gasoline emissions. So, once the battery’s manufacturing “carbon footprint” is taken into account… your “Green” Prius is about the same as any other old car… just quadruple the sticker price.
Of course, a little hyperbole is necessary for the humor bone… but you get the idea – maybe?

My 1980 Honda Civic got well over 40mpg. What’s the big deal? Why the need for all these poisonous, flammable batteries? PS … don’t EVER get in a fender-bender in your Prius … cause your Insurance Co. will JUNK IT … with even minor damage.

This just in (actually, it won’t be in until after this regulation passes) – California’s utilities which are contractually required to provide a guaranteed rate of return are struggling to provide adequate returns in the current environment. A new $50 grid connection fee will be assessed to each month’s utility bill. Additionally new fees will be placed on usage at times of high demand.

This is going to be a significant increase in the solar market in California,” Kelly Knutsen of the trade group California Solar & Storage Assn. said of the new requirement. “We are also sending a national message that … we are a leader in the clean energy economy.”

This is very much a laughaloud.
Sure, significant. Please gimme my napkin, I’m drooling. Message yes. This is not about money, just a moral message.

The whole environmental/energy mandate agenda in California is being pushed by a few zealots and propagated by Socialist politicians who believe they are supporting the people. Governor Brown is acting like Obama did and the only difference being the Liberals have a lock on state politics and can’t be challenged. Wasn’t always that way but is now and will be into the foreseeable future. California will eventually eat itself.

Now here’s the thing. While this guy tries to scare you and make you think there is a bunch of upfront costs. Get the facts first! Did you know that there are 0-down options and that a large portion of the costs are reduced with the federal tax incentives? Even in states like Washington where the normal cost of energy is low, homeowners are as much as 80% of the total cost of their systems. I encourage you to find out the facts as soon as possible and don’t believe this negative garbage. Going solar is the smartest long-term investment a homeowner can make in my opinion. But don’t take it from me, find out for yourself and get a free proposal from the experts.

This government subsidy stuff is like the government reaching into your left pocket and taking $100 instead of reaching into your right pocket and taking $80…and then telling you that they are saving you money.

My take on government subsidies is that it is like the government reaching into your left pocket and taking $100 then saying “We are going to help you pay for your Home Solar System with this money” and then stuffing $20 in your right pocket.

0 up front options always cost more over the long run since you are financing everything.
As to crowing about federal subsidies, if solar was as good as the trolls claim, it wouldn’t need to be subsidized.
You seem to be happy that you are able to steal enough from your neighbors to cover 80% of the cost of your little toy.

We’ve already been through this charade … in the 1970’s. Many people tried photovoltaic solar … and after about 10 years most decided to disconnect the useless contraptions on their roof. And guess what!? The solar panels of today are made … the. same. exact. way. Using the same chemical reaction to generate electricity, in the same type enclosure. This isn’t “new” technology. The CONSUMER made their decision … solar panels were only for those who cared to signal their “greenness”. The rest of the marketplace couldn’t be bothered.
Then …
PG&E in cooperation with the eco-zealots at the State PUC … jacked-up everyone’s electric rates with their multi-tiered system of GOVERNMENT-sponsored economic punishment (disincentive). THAT is the ONLY WAY to create market demand for solar panels littering everyone’s roof … to CRUSH everyone under unnecessarily HUGE electric rates … to FORCE (the “correct”) behavior. Behold the command-control Deep state Marxist bureaucrats!!!
All of these eco-policies are a CRUSHING regressive TAX on the poor and middle class. The eco-government cabal are NOT your friend.

Kenji demonstrates his ignorance of photovoltaic solar panels. He posts: ” Using the same chemical reaction to generate electricity”
…
They do not use a chemical reaction kenji, please get educated before showing your lack of understanding.

Kenji, the covalent bonds in the silicon crystal lattice are not “broken” when the PV panel is producing electrical energy.

Coeur de Lion you really have no idea what you’re talking about. The link you provided doesn’t support your assertion. The covalent bonds are “broken” when a photon raises the energy state of an electron enough to free it.

When an electron gains enough energy to participate in conduction (is “free”), it is at a high energy state. When the electron is bound, and thus cannot participate in conduction, the electron is at a low energy state. Therefore, the presence of the bond between the two atoms introduces two distinct energy states for the electrons. The electron cannot attain energy values intermediate to these two levels; it is either at a low energy position in the bond, or it has gained enough energy to break free and therefore has a certain minimum energy. This minimum energy is called the “band gap” of a semiconductor. The number and energy of these free electrons, those electrons participating in conduction, is basic to the operation of electronic devices.
The space left behind by the electrons allows a covalent bond to move from one electron to another, thus appearing to be a positive charge moving through the crystal lattice. This empty space is commonly called a “hole”, and is similar to an electron, but with a positive charge.

Actually Greg F, I do know what I am talking about. If the covalent bonds within the crystal silicon were “broken” the crystal would fall apart. That does not happen. There is no “chemical reaction” taking place in a PV panel. If a chemical reaction was taking place, why does the panel continue to work for 10, 15, or 20 years? Why don’t the byproducts of the “chemical reaction” not build up and prevent the continued functioning of the panel. You are dead WRONG to assert that a CHEMICAL reaction is taking place in a PV panel. It is an ELECTRONIC reaction that is taking place, not a chemical one.
…
You really are lost if you think it’s a “chemical ” reaction.

Greg F, when an electrical current flows through a copper wire, there is no “chemical reaction.” The same sort of thing is happening in a silicon crystal when it generates electrical power when photons strike it.

Actually Greg F, I do know what I am talking about. If the covalent bonds within the crystal silicon were “broken” the crystal would fall apart.

You clearly don’t know what you are talking about. Go back and read the link I posted. It explains how it all works. For the crystal to “fall apart” all the bonds would have to be “broken” which is clearly not what is going on. In fact if you did break all the covalent bonds we would call it melting.

There is no “chemical reaction” taking place in a PV panel.

Never said there was a chemical reaction. That is why it is called solid state physics. I expect an apology for your false assertion.

Greg F, when an electrical current flows through a copper wire, there is no “chemical reaction.”

Never said there was a chemical reaction. That is why it is called solid state physics. I expect an apology for your false assertion.

The same sort of thing is happening in a silicon crystal when it generates electrical power when photons strike it.

What is happening I already explained. Go back and read the link I provided. It explains how a photon frees an electron from a covalent bond.

“I expect an apology for your false assertion.:
…
That ain’t gonna happen buster.
..” The covalent bonds are “broken” when a photon raises the energy state of an electron enough to free it.”
…
WRONG WRONG WRONG.
…
The bond is not “broken” when an electron is raised to a higher state.
…
And the movement of “holes” is not the breaking of covalent bonds.
…
Your understanding of chemical bonds and electronic phenomena is confused. The movement of either an electron in a crystal lattice, or the movement of a “hole” in the same lattice is NOT the breaking of a covalent bond. Your chemistry professor should flunk you.

Greg F, I suggest you look at the chemical energy involved in a Si–Si bond, and the amount of energy required to release an electron from a silicon crystal. These two numbers will show you that the photon hitting a PV panel is no where near enough to break a Si-Si bond.

Greg F: posts: “The covalent bonds are “broken” when a photon raises the energy state of an electron enough to free it.”
…
Except that the energy required to raise the electron is less than the energy released when the covalent bond was formed. Therefore the bond was never BROKEN.
..
So your assertion that the chemical bond was broken is false.
….
You posted: “where I said anything about it being a chemical reaction”
…
The breaking of a covalent bond is a chemical reaction. ……
…
So, I ask you to make mind please and get it straight.

Greg F, your problem is that you don’t understand covalent bonds. A covalent bond involves the sharing of PAIRS of electrons between two atoms. Removing ONE of the PAIR to create a semiconductor “hole” does not break the bond.

Greg F, I suggest you look at the chemical energy involved in a Si–Si bond, and the amount of energy required to release an electron from a silicon crystal.

It’s called solid state physics. The amount of energy required is called the band gap. The amount of energy required is measured in eV (electron volts).

Electrons are able to jump from one band to another. However, in order for an electron to jump from a valence band to a conduction band, it requires a specific minimum amount of energy for the transition.

These two numbers will show you that the photon hitting a PV panel is no where near enough to break a Si-Si bond.

Which is clearly wrong. You just are not a big enough man to admit your mistake.

ROTFLMFAO @ Greg F
..
To break the covalent bond, you have to remove BOTH electrons of the pair.
..
Doesn’t happen in a PV panel.
..
Nice try buddy. Solid state physics is not chemistry. If you broke the covalent bonds in the crystal lattice, the crystal would fall apart.

The electrons surrounding each atom in a semiconductor are part of a covalent bond. A covalent bond consists of two atoms “sharing” a single electron. Each atom forms 4 covalent bonds with the 4 surrounding atoms.

Do you get that? The electrons are part of the covalent bond. Remove a electron and the covalent bond is broken. Can you follow that? When light of the correct frequency hits one of the electrons it is freed, the covalent bond is broken.
PS: The energy required to “raise the electron” has to be the same as the “energy released when the covalent bond was formed” or you’re violating conservation of energy. Take a damn physics course.

Greg F posts: “A covalent bond consists of two atoms “sharing” a single electron”
..
WRONG
..
WRONG
..
WRONG
..
“A covalent bond, also called a molecular bond, is a chemical bond that involves the sharing of electron pairs between atoms”
…
PAIRS: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covalent_bond
…
NOT A “SINGLE” electron a PAIR of them.
…
Which is why removing ONE doesn’t break the bond.

Greg F, from your link: “Therefore, between each atom and its 4 surrounding atoms, 8 electrons are being shared. The structure of a semiconductor is shown in the figure below.”
…
8/4=2
..
2 electrons per bond.

davebrownnetworks
Since excessive subsidies for domestic solar have been reduced in the UK, the solar market has collapsed. There are still subsidies mind you, just not excessive, and they can’t make solar a viable proposition.
Admittedly, solar isn’t ideal at our latitude, but wind should be, being that we’re an island nation perched on the edge of the Gulf Stream. However, onshore turbine planning applications have plummeted as the subsidies have also dried up.
Renewables are a white elephant under any circumstances. Turbines are 14th Century technology for 21st Century problems. Solar only works where the sun shines regularly, and even then for only 12 hours (less) per day. A winter’s day in the UK will see 8 hours of daylight at best, just when we need energy the most.
Surplus energy can’t be stored and if sold back to the grid, without subsidy, can’t produce a return large enough to justify the cost of solar or wind installation because fossil fuel derived energy is still cheap.
To short circuit that, renewables are foisted onto the public, driving up electricity costs to pay for the white elephants and the media is used to trumpet that renewables are now as cheap as fossil.
Utterly dishonest, manipulative, conniving smoke and mirrors.
And the ones who suffer? The poor, who are invariably elderly who have a choice of heating or eating, during miserable UK winter’s, and more are dying every year because of this heartless, socialist drive to combat the myth that human emitted atmospheric CO2 is the cause of climate change.
And whilst the developing world is chopping down valuable forests to provide essential heating and cooking fuel: with 200,000,000 deaths anticipated by 2050 from the smoke inhaled from indoor fires, the West wrings it’s hands over deforestation, hands out toy solar ovens, lights and offers entire villages a single stand pipe for clean water instead of funding viable fossil fuelled power stations.
This is what you people are not only condoning, but promoting with your virtue signalling solar panels for the wealthy West.
I hope your proud of promoting the deaths of 200,000,000 people.

I realized Jerry Brown was something of a space cadet during his first term as Governor. He proved it with his appointment of Adriana Gianturco to Caltrans, the state roads agency, who declined to build roads on the rationale that any reduction in congestion would not be permanent.
The real issue is that the other Democrats in California as trying to make Brown look rational, and that they actually get elected.

I guess California’s already high home prices were not going up fast enough for Jerry Brown. This will help raise home prices, beyond the reach for many. Women, minorities and gays will be hardest hit, as usual.

Every NEW home (and remodel of more than 50% of existing floor area) HAS TO BE FIRE SPRINKLERED. Nevermind, that this will do NOTHING to curb CA wildfires (when was the last wildfire that started from a house fire … answer ZERO). And the internal fire sprinklers will NOT save your home from the wildfire. So WHY did the State mandate Fire sprinklers for every single Home in CA? Search me … ? I have no clue … except to say that the pipe fitters UNION were strong proponents for the draconian Fire Code change.

you all do realize that most developers will install the cheapest system allowed by the regulation.
what are the specs for the regulation. if there is no wattage per sf
from what i can find the regulation requires 2watt hr per sf of roof so a 30×50 house=~1500sf of roof(basically)…or 3000 watt hr required. so IF i am doing this right.. a 270watt panel would “generate” 270 watt hr per hr… so 3000sf roof/270watts per panel = 12 panels.
developer buys bulk 270watt panels – bulk pallet cost for 6264(plus shipping) -27 panels so each house would take – ABOUT- half a pallet, so 3132 cost for a 3240 watt system (just panels)
fast research says a family of 4 uses ~50kWH per day… a 3240 watt system would provide- about
75% – based on 12hr of sun a day of the power required for said family-based on the system actually GENERATING 3240 watts per hr 12 hr a day.

Depending on how much they increase the insulation requirements in the new standards, that could end up costing even more than the mandate for solar panels.
Given the mild climate for most of the state, more insulation will never pay back the investment. Much like solar panels.

UNLESS ! … PG&E in conjunction with the CAPUC (who is supposed to be protecting the consumer) … continue to JACK UP electric rates. This is the endgame for this mandate … to CRUSH the middle class consumer under usurious electric rates. To DESTROY anyone who dares to operate their “old” “used” home without solar panels. The State is determined to NEVER build another Power Plant in the State of CA … ever … not a single one … while simultaneously flooding the State with illegal aliens.
A State as “technologically advanced” as the State of CA should be providing CHEAP, PLENTIFUL, electricity to every business and consumer via a network of Nuclear Power plants. Sadly … we’d rather force everyone to wear sweaters indoors and give up all their disposable income to a power company that employs more PR shills than actual electricians … generating power for their customers.

In a prior life, I would agree with you.
However, let’s say your entire family lives there… and you have kids… and you would like your kids to see and know their grandparents… now what?
The problem is really that the general public no longer has any power over the government. The Great American Experiment is not over yet, but is very much in danger. And CA residents are one of the most endangered citizens in the USA.
I don’t judge CA citizens… it’s the corrupt government that’s the problem.

you guys aren’t getting it. This is rich Californian’s way of keeping “those people” out. AND all the while they get to say it’s just “for the environment.”
Think about it. It’s actually amazing this wasn’t done before. They don’t want to live among the people they import to clean their houses and whatnot. But they can’t keep them out in any legal sense. So, say it’s for “green” energy, your rich friends LOVE YOU and you drive the riff raff to Nevada. Perfect!

Nailed it. Add to that the vicious fight that builders and developers face in each and every upper middle class CA community … from the mean-faced, hysteric, NIMBYS. A Commissioner in a N.CA city where I presented a project actually said that … “the city should consider making the (rather common) ranch home neighborhood into a “historic preservation zone”. Yep. Just to DEFEAT a very reasonable home addition … the sitting Commissioner suggested that the entire neighborhood be “frozen in time” to prevent any changes.
The landed gentry move-in … and the drawbridge goes up.

kenji
Ah! The UK model of planning consent then.
Dilapidated, damp, crumbling, inefficient, Victorian buildings, tediously recycled, at extortionate prices, because there’s a ‘green belt surrounding London and many other cities that can’t be built on for fear of urban sprawl.
A housing shortage because developers must go through years of site research because the greens fear for butterflies, and historians for their precious artefacts.
And yet floods of immigrants are allowed into the country on the premise that no one here will do the mental jobs, perhaps because they were driven to higher education in some obscure subject, and if they dare earn over £21,000 per year, their student loan repayments cripple them, and they can’t pay their mortgage or rent on aforesaid crumbling Victorian pile.
So they remain unemployable and might achieve the state maximum benefit payment of £26,000 per year.
Am I making sense so far.
No, thought not.
This is what’s in store, be warned.

The problem with their figuring is that the cost is added totally up front from the builder. When qualifying for a mortgage that cost is figured directly into the monthly PITI payment while the supposed monthly savings in electricity are not. This higher cost of the home will also increase the escrow amount required for taxes and insurance plus the minimum down payment required will be higher. And those costs are all cash out of pocket at closing. If there are any kind of recording fees or other state legal fees and taxes that are triggered by the purchase those will go up also as they are usually based on the sale price of the home and paid at closing. So lots of these smaller costs have not been figured in by those estimates of net savings.

It’s great that all California roofs will soon have to be covered by solar panels to capture all that free solar energy. Mind you, there are some sacrifices to be made such as: intermittency of power (dark is dark whether by a passing cloud or the sun steals away to another part of the world); as well as electric bills going through the roof, even now. Talk about energy poverty.
Eliminate tailpipe emissions with mandated all electric vehicles using very high cost electricity. Never mind that battery life is short, battery replacement costs are high, battery energy density is low, and that trip through the desert? Forget about it.
Of course, California’s feel good habits will still be dependent upon all the other US State’s taxpayers, paying for the “renewable” subsidies through the Federal government.
Not a sustainable business plan.

Besides the fact that this is a government mandidated expense,as a CA resident it is foolish to over depend on alternate energies for the bulk of your grid system. Every night the sun goes down and your energy stops flowing. Unless they mandidate battery backups, it will still require a large capacity from the various utility suppliers to cover the times when solar cannot meet the demand. I have solar with battery backup mostly for long term security reasons not because I figure on cutting back on CO2.

Apparently, builders have the option of installing a solar panel array in a field rather than on the actual roof.
So, this legislation is a full out Tesla bailout… each new housing development will have its own useless solar installation with zero new homes being fitted with individual panels.
Legislated Virtue Signalling (LVS).

The number of people living in their cars because they cannot afford the cost of housing is close to 100,000 and many municipalities allow parking in the lots of public buildings overnight to avoid clogging roads and neighborhoods. You would think that addressing this problem and the escape of the middle class would be more pressing issues. Perhaps they will require solar roofs on all vehicle purchases, new or used.

CA refuses to build the NEW power plants that are needed for the people and industry (what’s left of it). Our power industry executives spend all their time (and my rate dollar) on public relations … convincing the population that they won’t burn any more people to death from poorly maintained and horrifically-located underground gas lines. And spend time virtue-signaling their “green” credentials … and lecturing consumers how NOT to consume power.

This is a higher form of virtue signalling by all involved in government, the supporting NGOs and the people who cheer this madness on. Such people are clueless as to the economic consequences of their policies. The are so blinded by good intentions that they only take notice when the money dries up. They may attempt to mitigate the flight of the Productive Class by amping up the subsidies to the 1 million foreign aliens who are residing in the state in violation of federal law. This will not end well.
Leave while you can. Something that cannot go on forever, won’t. (Steyn’s Law). This is especially true for families that have a significant proportion of their net worth tied up in their personal residence. There has never been a better time to sell and move out of the state.

As expensive and overpriced as housing in CA is, solar panels are almost a drop in the bucket.
I noticed that the law applies only to residences. Not new gas stations. Not new industries. No commercial businesses.

CA to the middle class: “You SOBs are not leaving fast enough. When we act like we want you to get the hell out, we mean NOW! After all, too many of you have voted for Republicans & we’ve got poor Mexicans & S Americans comming in to replace you & vote OUR way!”

Not all refugees of California that move to Oregon are liberal loons (I’m proof). Unfortunately I think a lot of the craziness in Oregon and Washington is home grown. Portland, Salem, Eugene – veritable “no go ” zones for me.

lunatic,
I understand. I worked with companies in the San Diego, LA, and Sacramento areas that made hardware for a ‘major aerospace manufacturer’. I found some like-minded folks at these places and enjoyed their professionalism and friendships. They were in the minority however. Liberal Seattle attracts socialist democrats, unfortunately, and they spread into the surrounding areas like a malignant cancer.

ristvan
Same in the UK although most are so politically/socially ignorant they dont know the difference between a Capitalist and a socialist, I was forced to explain it in Janet and John terms to my neighbour the other day.
Virtually none realise that socialism is a political construct dreamed up by Marx, himself from priveledge and wealth.
None consider that mankind evolved from free trade, including conflict over it, that socialism is regressive politics ultimately leading to communism, which has been proven an abject failure.
~deep breath~
Rant over, sorry.

For a house that costs 500K, the average cost in the coastal areas, adding 10K to the cost of a house is nothing. And the savings in elect offset the extra $$ on your mortgage, so it seems like a good idea.

Death by a thousand cuts.
Regardless, the claim that the electricity generated will cover the extra mortgage cost is just another lie.
PS: They system won’t last anywhere near as long as your mortgage.

The $10K is way under the mark. Here in Arizona, the typical solar install on new construction is $18K – $20K for a 2,100 sf home. The $10K figure they give is probably just the hardware, not the installation.

reallyskeptical
$10k for what, precisely. Solar panels that generate electricity, assuming it’s sunny enough during the day, when most people are at work?
Sell it back to the grid? That works well in the UK, doesnt it – not.
I assume you are a socialist as you dismiss $10k as a paltry sum.

Don’t you guys have an Amendment for that? Can one take the panels off and sell them? Do you really believe they would pay for themselves at the average price of power in the US or do they only pay at ever rising power costs and carbon credits? I can see their crony capitalist buddies are excited about the business opportunity.

I feel for those whose new homes do not have tile or slate roofs. Solar panels on a roof makes replacing a roof significantly more expensive, and shingled roofs do not last more than twenty years, or so, some much less.

Putting solar panels on your roof is a form of virtue signaling, so most Californians will regard such a regulation as an opportunity, and if prices drop, it will be a bargain. It is surely much better than the multicolored signs my neighbors post along their driveways proclaiming their support of a world without borders, no human is illegal, and “science” as defined by the 97% “consensus”. I live on the northwest face of a hill in the Puget Sound region, and one of my neighbors installed 20 panels on the roof of their home. From late October thru early March, no sun shines on that roof, But what a grand display of their good intentions! Are mountains and hills allowed to have northerly facing slopes in California? ? Are trees allowed to grow on those hills? What will replace solar panels as a sign of wealth and environmental concern when everyone has some? This will set off a costly competition amongst serious virtue signalers. I can’t imagine how it will end, but I’m pretty sure its real impact will be in the realm of unintended consequences.

Bob Stewart
Sorry, I can’t leave it at that. It’s just too funny.
You might want to point out to the ‘land without borders’ mob, that single policy is tearing the EU apart. The UK is leaving and there will be more over the coming decade or so, principally because of unrestricted borders leading to floods of poor Eastern Europeans (read former USSR satellite countries) into wealthy cities such as London and Paris, coincidentally, both subject to vicious home grown Islamic inspired terrorism.
Personally, I welcome immigration onto my home soil, but on my terms, not theirs.

I saw this story last week on another site. The comments were almost exclusively anti-mandate.
Within 24 hours the comments were purged and replaced with the following:
“Due to repeated violations of our rules and guidelines, the comments section to this article has been closed.”

I don’t see anyone mentioning the very large volume of CO2 which is emitted into the atmosphere for each solar panel. Will the panel save enough CO2 emissions in its lifetime (however long that may prove to be), or will this “carbon debt” be greater than can be paid back/
For that matter, have any of you Experts ever visited a silicon smelter where the stuff is actually make?
I have.

geologist down the pub
As far as I’m aware, the only empirical manifestation of increased atmospheric CO2 is that over the last 30 years of satellite observations, the planet has greened by 14%. Two continents the size of mainland America worth of extra vegetation according to one of the NASA scientists who conducted the research.
A sobering thought, even if you are in the pub 🙂
Perhaps we should be encouraging solar panels if what you say is true.

“….Listen up comrade! You WILL buy solar panels whether you like it or not….”.
Waiting for The Glorious People’s Proletarian Socialist Worker State of California to add the hammer and sickle to its state flag. Seems more and more appropriate as time goes on.

The high speed rail project just keeps getting pushed further and further into the future, with no apparent limits on its cost.
Yet, the elected officials can set a hard date on the costs to be incurred by their constituents.
That stuff wouldn’t even fly in Illinois.

I guess this means a homeowner will not be allowed to have trees taller than the edge of the roof so the shade will not reduce the electrical output. The homes in the forest will not be allowed, now will use of trees to cool the house in the Summer.

This sounds like it will do for solar panel manufacturers what Obamacare did for health insurance companies – guarantee a “captive audience” of customers! What better way to make money than find a way to essentially force people to rely on your product or service?
That said, I sure am glad I no longer live in CA. I lived out there in the late 90’s and I had thought about settling down permanently, but luckily that did not come to pass.
I read a similar article about this gov’t over-reach which also mentioned them wanting to make homes electric only, and eventually get rid of natural gas. Here is the link to that article:https://www.ocregister.com/2018/05/04/california-to-become-first-u-s-state-mandating-solar-on-new-homes/
It did not say this would be mandated (at least not yet…) but what a foolish thing to do considering how fragile and over-taxed the power grid already is. Apparently the politicians and powers that be are unable to understand how much more electricity is consumed by appliances that use electric resistance to generate heat, like water heaters, electric stoves, electric dryers and electric heat (yes there are indeed some places in CA where you still need heat). All of the draw of these electric appliances will surely exceed whatever power might be generated by residential solar panels, especially at night when the sun goes down. I guess they really want their grid to crash!
Forget the electric cars – all electric appliances will surely cause every bit as much strain on the grid.
I am guessing it won’t be long before CA is akin to a third world nation right here in the US. It seems it is getting off to a good start with mass outward migration and vast tent cities…..

In a ‘real world’ situation, solar panels are not cleaned and they will be found with a dirty surface from soot, organics and dust after just a few months. Rain does not wash this off and it can only be cleaned by pressure-washing or scrubbing with soap and water. One year old panels can see their output diminished by 25% due to this opaque layer.
Add in the lower efficiency (or the cost to pay to have it cleaned regularly) and the cost of your systems lifetime performance is a lot more than what you were told you could expect. Of course, not every roof is perfectly positioned to take advantage of the sun, so costs rise/benefits decrease more than expected.

So I have some questions on this.
1. What’s to stop the homeowner from removing the new PV panels and hardware as soon as the sale closes?
2. What’s to stop him/her from selling the PV hardware on eBay to recoup his/her money?
3. The PV installation, since the homeowner owns it, is just an appliance, like the AC compressor or water heater. Can rhe state force him/her to pay for maintenance to keep it functional? (If my AC or water heater breaks, no one is going to force me to fix it).
4. If a construction code compliance requires it, then if I sell, can the new owner buy it without fixing it? Assume the new buyer is a cash buyer.
5. Can the state force me to use my home to supply power to grid, even if I don’t want to?
I think this solar PV mandate is likely an unconstitutional taking.

Thank God, the Founders and Framers that we have a Bill of Rights which should, if the rule of Law and not of Man still exists in the USA, which means that this insane, Communist pronunciamento will be struck down as against all that is legal, right and holy.

Felix,
Yes indeed. Thank you pointing out the Bill of Rights to the US constitution.
The states are also restricted by the Bill of Rights.
The 5th Amendment – the Taking Clause (the final sentence reads);
“Nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.”
In other words:
If I am forced to provide maintenance to my rooftop solar so that it supplies excess power to the public grid, the state must compensate me.
This is an appropriation for which the legislature must make funds available. Liekly that would be cost prohibitive to state budget.
This mandate will almost certainly die in courts.

Joel, my brother,
I might actually put solar panels on my roof were the CA legislature to recognize its constitutional obligation to pay me therefore.
I still wouldn’t like subsidizing Chinese Communists, but as it would benefit me and my family, I’d play along.

So, I understand that in CA, if you haf to make your own septic system, ther’re are very $$ requirements. This has been in place for more than 30 years. Why hasn’t this run afoul of the “Takings” amendment?

Really,
Seriously, that’s your best argument? It is to laugh.
City, county and state septic requirements to keep from polluting ground water in your warped alternative universe are the same as mandates for solar cells on your roof? Clearly, Leftist F@scists are not of this world.

Really skeptical,
You point out the Septic System must meet code and that cost money to private owner.
Okay, but by definition the Septic System is not connected to the sewer system, a public utility.
A septic system must be installed and maintained where no sewer connection is available for ground water safety and public health to protect from fecal contaminated run-off.
In *every* US jurisdiction, for a building permit, if sanitary sewer is readily available, the construction must connect to it. You cannot install a septic system if sanitary sewer is available.
This fails in the the analogy to the electricity grid and the solar PV install mandate, since the electricity grid connection is available to homeowner. Further, the solar PV installation sells excess power back to the grid. The homeowner is being forced to do this.
The commission might be on more solid ground if it issued a ruling mandating solar PV on new construction where electricity was required but no grid connection was economically feasible. Thus to limit the use of off-grid diesel/fossil fuel generators, the commission could possibly be on firm legal ground to mandate a PV install to reduce generator emissions.
In the septic system case, the sanitary sewer system is NOT available to homeowner.

There inevitably will be legal challenges to this mandate.
So keep in mind this mandate arises from a 5person commission. It did come from the legislative branch through legislation signed into law..
You cannot argue from the a health, or community welfare standpoint, simply because homes built prior to 2020 do not have to retrofit with Solar PV panels attached to the grid.
All this together, I think makes this Solar PV mandate likely to be struck down in a court challenge..

Depends upon which judges in which courts rule. If it comes to the present USSC, there is no doubt what the decision will be. But look at the unconstitutional rulings of lower courts in the cases against Trump’s DACA EO, countering Obama’s clearly illegal DACA ruling.

The Supreme Court did rule 5-4 the ACA (ObamaCare) mandate was constitutional. Justice Roberts had to jump through dubious legal hoops to do so, but it did but invoking Congresses right to impose taxation under the mandate penalty.
But again, keep in mind, this PV mandate did not come from the legislature like O-care did. It came from an un-elected 5 member commission.
This is almost certainly unconstitutional taking.

Roberts switched his position because Obama had dirt on him.
Not likely to happen again in a takings case with Trump as POTUS.
Roberts hid behind the taxation defense. Yet the grossly overpaid proponents of Obama”care” had previously insisted that it wasn’t a tax.

This solar PV installation mandate suffers from the extreme problem (unlike O-Care) that it did not come from the legislature and signed by the Governor. It comes from an un-elected commission with no power to appropriate funds to compensate home owners to maintain their solar systems.

At one point, the ACA ruling was the first case where both the majority and minority positions were written by the same person.
Roberts wrote the majority position, then switched sides and wrote the new majority decision.

Height of hypocrisy. Making solar panels is too polluting and environmentally destructive to be done in CA, but the lunatic fringe powers that be there are only too happy to require that their enslaved, subject peons buy Chinese solar panels made in a totally environmentally destructive manner.
The depths of Progressive hypocrisy and lunacy cannot be plumbed.

All the actual evidence available is that more CO2 is a good thing for the environment and that windmills and solar panels massacre birds and bats, while spreading evil, worse than worthless development across the landscape.

Most people reading this site probably agree, but saying this to a religious “the world is going down by exploding, imloding, flooding, drying out, boiling and freezing, all at the same time!!” believer is like hitting a pillow. We need to keep demanding proper empirical evidence for the AGW narrative. And in that respect I have a problem with, that most people know to ask for evidence, but when the other part tries to change the subject, most people don’t keep on insisting on some proper answer. THAT’s what we need.

The $9,500 is almost certainly just the hardware cost. It does not account for labor and installation costs.
In Arizona, a new construction Solar PV install is around $18K – $20K. But that varies dependong on the contractor and the installer. Big jobs (every house) on new subdivision jobs allow the install costs to be lower.

I hope we have no easily offended German guests ~Gulp~
Feel free to respond with Scot’s caricatures, we are a culture anyone is allowed to marginalise without sanction.
Personally, I’m a bald, fat, middle class, western white bloke, with two kids, a mortgaged home, two cars, a managed pension, and a plan to retire with no debt.
I’m also a climate sceptic.
I am the enemy of all mankind.

California forcing you to buy PV solar panels…. Isn’t it ironic that even though PV solar panels are the best of the official government subsidised “green” solutions, it’s by far not the “greenest”. A simple (and cheaper) solution is solar panel heaters, which have a higher yield from the sunshine, but are best used in colder areas and the cold season. But even better, how about a Solar assisted micro “Organic Rankine Cycle” (ORC) based system for “Combined Heat and Power” (CHP) cogeneration, where you get both heat and electricity from your installation? I think so. So to me it seems that California is forcing people to invest in something that isn’t really helpful.

Things are going to be “interesting” this summer is Politically Correct, green California:California grid operator sees tight power supplies for summer
“The California Independent System “Operator (ISO), the grid operator, said the system’s capacity to serve consumers will be tight in high-load periods in the summer months, especially during the evenings of hot days when solar power dissipates.”http://kfgo.com/news/articles/2018/may/09/california-power-supplies-will-be-tight-this-summer-grid-operator/
So…. Brown-outs from Gov Brown. How appropriately named.

I don’t live in California anymore, but if I did, I’d have a bunch of questions:
1. Where is the engineering analysis of this .undertaking?
2. What exceptions are allowed? I assume that a developer building in a forest, or a deep canyon or in the shadow of a six story building or a grove of date palms will not be required to install useless hardware. Who adjucates exceptions?
3. Why residential rather than grid scale solar? I find it hard to believe that large scale solar installations designed by real engineers and built by utilities would not be less problemetic, properly backed up,.and more cost effective than ad hoc installations engineered by real estate developers.
4. Where was this concept prototyped? What problems were encountered? Are the homeowners in the test bed happy with their solar installations?
5. The EIA is less than enthused about solar costs. See https://www.eia.gov/renewable/workshop/gencosts/ According to the EIA, after considering technology improvements and probable future natural gas costs, solar (presumably grid scale) will still be more expensive than natural gas in 2035. Was that taken into account?
6. Do the solar panels have to be rooftop? Can they be in a field next to the house where they are easy to wash? Can they be on a nearby hillside? Can they be part of a community solar project?
7. What sort of controls will be put in place to control scams and shoddy workmanship?
From a substantial distance, this sure looks like utopian planning. There are exceptions, but for the most parts, past utopian undertakings have not ended all that well..

So what happens to people who live along the foggy coast in more northern areas like here?https://prd-wret.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/assets/palladium/production/s3fs-public/thumbnails/image/fog-detail.jpg
And what about houses on the north faces of mountains that are lucky to get a couple hours of low angle sunlight just after sunrise and just before sunset?
Next up – CA government issues sealed thermostats in your house that will alarm authorities if you try to circumvent them; (mandatory 1 year in your local county gulag). Maximum heat setting = 62F, minimum cooling setting = 82F. And why not limit each person’s electrical usage too? If your house uses over “X” per person you’ll have a choice comrade, cut down on those wasteful amperes or invite some homeless people to live with you. (What could be more fair?)
Proof that this whole thing is a scam is that if the solons actually wanted to reduce fossil fuel emissions the easiest thing to do is ban passenger vehicles with engines over 50 HP per ton and require a governor to restrict speed to 40MPH. I wouldn’t be surprised that many of them are getting arm’s length kickbacks from the solar industry to guarantee future business now that many federal government alternative energy subsidies/incentives are being threatened by Trump.

I know someone living in Denmark, where electricity prices are among the highest in Europe, who has a solar panel on his roof and reckons to cut his electricity bill considerably. But if you visit on a hot day in July all the radiators in the house are hot (the heat generated has nowhere else to go). How is this problem solved in sunny California?

So if you planned to buy shares in a community solar project or wanted to be part of a utility scale solar PV deal like Apple you would be forced to go with the higher cost, lower economies of scale rooftop project?

And what does a CA house cost now, before this legislation…https://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-detail/Veleros-Plan-3_Los-Carneros_135-S-Los-Carneros-Rd_Goleta_CA_93117_P414046228720
Goleta is the poor armpit of Santa Barbara, and the image of this newly built home is a total fabrication. Replace the mature trees with identical houses 15 feet to either side. The view out back? An unobstructed look at the freeway, except when a train is going by on the tracks between the development and the freeway.
And this price is before the added cost of solar. I grew up in an all electric home in Goleta. My folks sold it when the cost to heat in winter rose above $300 per month. I pity the folks who will get stuck in this squalor.
I’ll bet there is a money trail behind this, not unlike all of Moonbeam’s rich buddies getting richer on his train to nowhere.

…and they call Facebook policy akin to a dictatorship
‘Akin to a Dictatorship.’ Huge Pension Fund Calls on Mark Zuckerberg to Drop Facebook’s Dual-Class Share Systemhttp://fortune.com/2018/05/10/facebook-calstrs-mark-zuckerberg-dual-class-dictatorship/
The California State Teachers’ Retirement System (CalSTRS,) which counts Facebook (FB, +1.69%) among its top 10 investments, said in a Thursday Financial Times op-ed that Facebook’s governance “is now akin to a dictatorship” if Zuckerberg does not relinquish the extraordinary control he enjoys through the system.

Solar panels are uneconomic and for other reasons are a dead loss and should not be connected to the grid
Uneconomic: Self explanatory
Dead loss: A solar panel may be suitable for powering a dedicated element in ones own water cylinder but as for pushing that energy to the boundary along the street and into a neighbours property, forget it. There is insufficient capacity/grunt/oomph. It is like starting a car engine with a torch battery.
No grid connection: To many harmonics
The majority of people are away from their homes for most of the sunny hours

For permission, contact us. See the About>Contact menu under the header.

All rights reserved worldwide.

Some material from contributors may contain additional copyrights of their respective company or organization.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on WUWT. If you continue to use this site we will assume that you are happy with it. This notice is required by recently enacted EU GDPR rules, and since WUWT is a globally read website, we need to keep the bureaucrats off our case!
Cookie Policy